We could have learned a lesson from the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Lebanon and Kuwait in 1983. The State Department did not heed these early warnings. In 1998 terrorists again attacked two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The State Department needed to protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, but instead turned a blind-eye on that fateful night in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, when brutal Islamists killed the ambassador and three other Americans. This is a serious matter that needs answers, since the credibility of the White House and State Department are on the line.

After Muammar Gadhafi's downfall, in the chaos that followed, extra security precautions should have been taken by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. The U.S.-led incursion into Libya in 2011 to oust Col. Gadhafi led to an unstable environment. Intelligence sources knew that Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda had infiltrated the region and were taking control of large swaths of eastern Libya. The interim government did not have the capability to provide protection for our diplomats.

The State Department should have assigned additional security personnel to the embassy in Tripoli. Instead in August 2012 temporary security resources were ordered to leave. The "February 17 Martyrs Brigade" militia with ties to al- Qaeda, was hired to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Reportedly members were warned in August of a possible attack on the compound. The State Department's decision to withdraw security staff was a major mistake. Hiring the local Islamist militia for protection in Benghazi was like "inviting a fox into the hen house".

Ambassador Stevens should not have gone to Benghazi without adequate security, since the weak Libyan government could not control the well-armed Islamists embedded in the area. U.S. military resources nearby should have been notified of his travel plans in the event of an emergency, knowing the vulnerability to attacks by the Islamists. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in a recent discussion noted that Ambassador Stevens was a highly experienced diplomat—a gregarious individual-- who felt comfortable traveling everywhere to meet with people. He knew the culture well and spoke the language, but probably was too trusting under the circumstances. He wanted to connect with the Libyan people, and foster U.S. relations.

The President's Letter of Instruction to Ambassador's states that the Secretary of State "has responsibility for the coordination and supervision of all U.S. government activities and operations abroad" and "must protect all United States Government personnel on official duty". Congressional hearings, and data uncovered regarding the September 11, 2012 attacks revealed that the State Department ignored the danger signals, failing to uphold its commitment to protect the diplomatic corps.

As a former U.S. ambassador I was appalled by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's insensitive remarks: "What difference at this point does it make...." It makes a big difference, since Ambassador Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by heavily armed Islamists that overran the Benghazi diplomatic compound and assaulted the nearby CIA annex. Diplomats know the risks of serving in hot spots, but with al-Qaeda's on-going jihad against the United States the State Department needed to be better prepared.

After the 1983 U.S. embassy bombings an Advisory Panel led by retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman issued recommendations for security upgrades at all diplomatic posts, especially in high risk regions. The report called for the formation of the Diplomatic Security Service (DS) to oversee security at all overseas operations. An assigned regional security officer (RSO) would be the principal adviser at each embassy to oversee protection matters, and to interface with local police and military authorities.In October 2012, Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb, who oversaw the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that she opposed keeping the temporary security team at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. Ms. Lamb had told the embassy's RSO "not to bother asking for additional help when the security team was sent home [in August]." Mr. Nordstrom had requested that the team of fifteen security staff and a six-agent training team remain until mid-September--after the 9/11 anniversary. Ms. Lamb further noted, "It would not have made any difference in Benghazi" adding, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time...."

Gregory H. Hicks the deputy chief of mission (DCM), Eric Nordstrom the RSO, and Mark Thompson the acting deputy assistant secretary of state for counterterrorism (CT) all testified that the State Department failed to protect Ambassador Stevens. During my service I had confidence in the embassy's DCM and RSO, since they would do everything in their power to protect the ambassador.

In Benghazi there had been previous attacks by Islamists on the U.S. consulate and several Western diplomats, so extra security was necessary-- especially since the compound was a neighborhood residence with few security amenities. The Obama Administration had a myopic view of Libya, and the consequences of the international military incursion that had destabilized North Africa and the Sahel region. Islamists have since overrun a number of towns and are attempting to gain control of governments in several countries.

Then Secretary Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, intelligence and military sources all knew in "real time" that Islamist attacks on the consulate were taking place. Yet no help was sent! Disguising the disastrous attacks by the Islamists as motivated by an anti-Islamic video was a political decision. Gross negligence and incompetence would be an understatement for those involved in making this unfortunate decision.

We are living in the most crucial time in modern history since the Cold War. At least then we could see our enemy, which is no longer the case. Today's enemy has no name, no face, no uniform, not even a standing army. The Islamists want to take control under Sharia, the brutal Islamic law. They would like to take us back to the twelfth century when Islam controlled much of North Africa and the Middle East. Al-Qaeda and Islamist affiliates are bent on destroying the Western way of life--with the United States foremost on the list.

The Islamists will continue to undertake terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. The Global War on Terrorism is not over. The message was quite clear after the Benghazi attacks, with signs reading: "America has long been an enemy to Islam" and "Death to America"--which tell a chilling story. The White House and several Congressional leaders have stated, "Why waste any more time on Benghazi...."

We need the Benghazi Select Committee to uncover the real facts, and peel back the layers of deceit. People must be held accountable. The families of the four Americans killed deserve answers--as do all Americans-- as to why our government stood by with blinders on. Hopefully with the lessons learned we can avoid the next major Islamist attack!

John Price served as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Mauritius, Republic of Seychelles, and Union of the Comoros from February 8, 2002 to June 17, 2005, and currently serves as a Resident Scholar at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. He is the author of the book "When the White House Calls", and regularly writes commentaries on Africa and the Middle East.

Of course I never expect any real objectivity from Eleanor Clift. I only bother to post this crazy piece to highlight how the left simply refuses to recognize and criticize a cover-up just before an election. Just outrageous. It really is like mafia. Simply bribe voters with taxpayer money and we have half the population agreeing to ignore this:

*******Eleanor Clift

05.15.14

My Benghazi Scandal

I may be under fire from conservatives for saying Ambassador Stevens wasn’t murdered in Benghazi, but I’m not backing down. Here’s why I said what I did.

After getting hammered by the right for remarks I made on the McLaughlin Group last weekend, I’d like to put what I said into the context that my critics omit. My information came from a former ambassador who lamented that complex and chaotic events in Benghazi are being way oversimplified. He pointed out that Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the safe room of a CIA outpost, that he wasn’t murdered in the sense that word is normally used. I thought this was an appropriate observation and still do, despite the hysteria my saying so has ignited on the right.

There is shared blame for the fact that Stevens wasn’t properly guarded and defended, but the chaos of that night and the days following stemmed from herculean efforts to keep the CIA’s involvement secret. Stevens was a very brave and assertive ambassador. He knew the language and the people, and he took risks he shouldn’t have. The former ambassador whose views I relied on believes that Stevens was in Benghazi to confront the CIA about prisoners they were holding and interrogating at the outpost. He speculates the attack on the facility was to free the prisoners.

If these are the kinds of questions that the select committee examines, maybe it will be a worthwhile exercise.

In the meantime, for perspective, I urge everyone to read Jane Mayer’s article “Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi,” which recounts a series of terrorist attacks in Beirut beginning with the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in April 1983, when 17 Americans, including seven CIA officers, were among the 63 killed. In October 1983, a truck filled with explosives rammed a Marine compound, killing 241 unarmed Marines in their sleep. Next was the torture and murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut, followed by yet another bombing of a U.S. outpost in September 1984, two months before the presidential election.

No administration is immune to tragic events in troublesome spots in the world, and not every tragedy is a scandal.

A House investigation of the Marine barracks bombing found “very serious errors in judgment” and recommended additional security measures around the world. When the September ’84 bombing occurred nearly a year later and the security was not yet in place, Democrats did not see it as an opportunity to score political points. Instead they accepted President Reagan’s explanation that repairs take time: “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

Today no one in either party would accept such a benign explanation for a lapse in security, nor should they. But no administration is immune to tragic events in troublesome spots in the world, and not every tragedy is a scandal. Poking around for partisan gain in what lawmakers now know were clandestine activities for answers to questions that for the most part have already been answered is the scandal

On Wednesday, Democrats deigned to join Republicans on the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi, primarily to protect Hillary Clinton’s reputation in particular, and the Obama administration’s in general. Toward that end they will likely do what they always do whenever their party is threatened: denigrate the investigation as it unfolds and obstruct it as much as possible.

Thus, it was completely unsurprising that even as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed five colleagues to the panel she dismissed the need for it. “The Republican obsession with Benghazi has not been about the victims, the families or the country,” she insisted, adding that it is “not necessary” to participate in a “partisan exercise once again.”

So why participate at all? A Politico story reveals the reason for the Democrats’ sudden change of heart. According to “sources familiar with the conversations,” Hillary Clinton informed several House Democrats and aides that she preferred that they participate rather than leave her open to unanswered “enemy fire” from House Republicans. “Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton contended. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

Leading Democrats endeavored to stay “on message.” “The creation of this committee is solely for propaganda, for politics,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). “It’s rather cheap, in my opinion, because after all the other committees held hearings and looked at the issue, and there was nothing there. But Republicans are trying to make a scandal where there is none.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) noted that “even a kangaroo court would be better off with a defense attorney,” and panel member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) believes “Republicans will attack Hillary Clinton by any means necessary.”

Cummings is the top Democrat on the Committee that also includes Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA); Ways and Means Committee member Linda Sanchez (D-CA); and Armed Services Committee member Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). Cummings insisted he decided to participate because we’ve “seen firsthand how abusive the Republicans have been during this investigation” and because Congress owes it to the families of the victims “to bring some minimal level of balance to this process and check false claims wherever they may arise.”

Perhaps they could start with Nancy Pelosi. Even as John Boehner (R-OH) announced the formation of a select committee, Pelosi claimed that family members of the slain Americans asked her not to launch another investigation. “Two of their families have called us and said, ‘Please don’t take us down this path again,’” Pelosi said during a weekly press conference. “It’s really hard for them. It’s very sad.” Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) office also insisted that a family member from the maternal side of Tyrone Woods’ family ostensibly agreed with Pelosi. Tellingly, none of the family members were named.

On the other side of the equation, Pat Smith, and Charles Woods, parents of slain diplomat Sean Smith and Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, respectively, expressed a clear and unambiguous desire to move forward and get to the truth behind the slaughter of their children.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who will be chairing the Committee, appears to be a man determined to ferret out that truth. Ten days ago in a devastatingly effective putdown of the mainstream media, the man who spent six years as a federal prosecutor handling cases that included drug trafficking rings, bank robberies, and child pornography cases, indicated he will bring that experience to the investigation. After quoting Obama’s promise to bring the perpetrators of the Benghazi murders to justice (though no one has even been arrested to this point), he laid out a series of unanswered questions that should embarrass any members of the media who consider themselves investigative journalists. They included the following:

–Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?

–Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?

–Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that?

–Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true.

–Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?

These and other equally probing questions severely undercut the contention by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats that everything about what happened in Benghazi is already known. This was the position still taken on Tuesday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). “The pertinent questions have been asked and answered again,” he insisted.

In contrast to Democratic hysteria, Gowdy maintained that the Committee members selected by Pelosi were “great picks.” “The ones that I know well are very thoughtful and very smart, and I have a great working relationship with them,” Gowdy added. He declined to offer any specifics on the nature of the hearings, noting that closed depositions tend to elicit more information from witnesses, while open hearings allow the public to decide who is more truthful. When asked which method (or both) would apply to Hillary Clinton, Gowdy refused to answer. “I’m not foreclosing any avenue of information,” he said.

Hillary Clinton’s reputation remains in the forefront. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) further illuminated that sentiment, insisting his fellow Democrats must prevent the hearings from being “made about one person.” “I think the American public feels that Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job as secretary of state and if Republicans are using Benghazi to blemish her record, I don’t think it will stick,” he contended.

If the public feels that way about Clinton, it stands in stark contrast State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. During an interview, Psaki couldn’t cite a single specific accomplishment attributable to that outstanding job. Nor could Clinton herself when she spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City on April 3. “I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense,” she generalized.

Perhaps Gowdy and his fellow Republicans will focus on the details of that leadership—or lack thereof—but Democrats are counting on Cummings to blunt any such efforts. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Cummings outlines a three-fold strategy aimed at minimizing damage for Clinton and other members of the Obama administration. The first aspect will be to “figure out exactly what (Republicans) are looking for … to focus on not who I am up against, but what I am searching for.” The second aspect is to “constantly raise the issues,” followed by an effort to “not allow any untruth to go unchallenged.” Yet even the Huff Post admits that Cummings’ real value to Democrats is his “combativeness.”

Cummings proved that during the IRS hearings when he attempted to turn a hearing where Lois Lerner asserted her right not to testify for the second time into a sideshow after hearing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) adjourned the meeting and cut off Cummings’ mic. Issa did so when it became apparent Lerner would have nothing to say and Cummings refused to voice the question he claimed he wanted to ask. Cummings subsequently accused Issa for “efforts to re-create the Oversight Committee in Joe McCarthy’s image.”

Yet just as damning emails revealed greater Obama administration involvement in the IRS’s efforts to target conservative tax-exempt groups, so too did damning emails reveal the extent to which the administration was willing to go to “tailor” the facts on Benghazi. It was those emails that forced Boehner’s hand on forming a select committee, especially since it took a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch to obtain them.

Nonetheless, Cummings remained reliably obstructionist. “I do not believe a select committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and a review of more than 25,000 pages of documents,” he declared. Whether those documents include the series of 41 documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of forcing the administration’s hand in court remains unclear.

Thus the so-called battle lines are drawn. Democrats and their media allies have made sure that their participation will be characterized as an effort to blunt Republican hyper-partisanship, even as they willfully ignore the reality that while the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign has been thoroughly shredded, not a single individual has been held accountable. Their other tactic consists of focusing, not on what happened in Benghazi, but how to prevent a reprise of that atrocity. “We hope that we can shine a light on where our focus should be, preventing tragedy like Benghazi from ever happening again.”

Sorry, no sale. The focus should be on what happened, and why it was necessary to cover it up. And if this is the so-called witch hunt Democrats say it is, no doubt they will be more than willing to hear from the 20-30 Benghazi survivors. It’s been almost a year since CNN reported that frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations were being employed to keep them from from talking to the public or Congress. Moreover, it’s utterly absurd that anyone could insist all Benghazi questions have been asked and answered when the Commander-in-Chief has yet to account for his whereabouts that night. Former Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that they spoke to Obama only once during the attack, and Clinton testified she spoke with him at 10 p.m. EST.

Shortly after that phone call the State Department issued the following statement:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

It is the commitment to the truth, toxic as it likely is for both Clinton and the Obama administration, that should drive the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I love Cong. West, but recognize he can be bombastic on occasion. "A guy on the airplane" is not real great sourcing, but it is interesting how closely what this "guy" said tracks the theory raised here within weeks of the actual attack.

I love Cong. West, but recognize he can be bombastic on occasion. "A guy on the airplane" is not real great sourcing, but it is interesting how closely what this "guy" said tracks the theory raised here within weeks of the actual attack.

Trey Gowdy should be very interesting to watch. He is a former prosecutor, and the definition of a pit-bull. Unless he is somehow restrained by Republican "leadership" - and I'm not sure he can be - he will get to the bottom of this. I understand he has plenty of evidence and a detailed plan of attack regarding subpoenaing witnesses, including Hillary. I can't wait to see these people squirm.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

"Despite knowing exactly where Khattala was, senior US officials told The Daily Beast that they had to exercise patience in their execution of the mission while the Justice Department gathered evidence needed for his prosecution, which will likely happen in Washington D.C."

O.M.G.

"It also emerged this week that the U.S. justified the capture to the UN with intelligence that Khatallah was planning further attempts on American lives."

Because Obama and his cronies think America is the problem. It's crystal clear - and has been since before he took office. Read his two books (the second of which most experts believe was ghost-written by William Ayers.) This man hates America as it was founded and told us he planned to "fundamentally transform" it. He is succeeding faster than many expected he could. When Rush Limbaugh famously stated "I hope he fails" upon Obama's election, this is what he was talking about. The man is NOT failing. He is enacting his malevolent agenda for America just as he intended.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

We are in a war not with an immoral tactic ("terrorism") but with Islamic Fascism. Gitmo and the military justice system are eminently suitable for this war, yet Baraq insists on it being waged as a matter of police arresting criminals-- hence the delay while FOX and CNN and others readily interviewed this guy within weeks of the attack-- so a "criminal case" could be prepared and the UN notified!!? Are you fg kidding me?!?

We are in a war not with an immoral tactic ("terrorism") but with Islamic Fascism. Gitmo and the military justice system are eminently suitable for this war, yet Baraq insists on it being waged as a matter of police arresting criminals-- hence the delay while FOX and CNN and others readily interviewed this guy within weeks of the attack-- so a "criminal case" could be prepared and the UN notified!!? Are you fg kidding me?!?

All the shysters men will be out claiming IRS was just following protocol and or just a snafu.

We should be able to confiscate WH hard drives to get the evidence. Good luck with that.

Of course other then 10 minute discussion between Anderson Cooper and Jeff Tobin there will not be one peep from the same media that went wild after Nixon. There was no end to their congratulating themselves over getting him impeached. Now for fully worse crimes total silence.

You may remember I brought up this possibility a very long time ago on the basis of what an unusually well-informed friend said when I asked him about "foreign accents" speaking Arabic amongst the attackers.

CAIRO—Islamic hard-line militias claimed to have taken control of Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, after defeating army units, taking over military barracks and seizing tanks, rockets and hundreds of boxes of ammunition.

The extent of the militias' control of the city was not clear. On Thursday, the city's streets were nearly empty, with residents staying indoors and shops closed—but with also no sign of checkpoints by either militiamen or security forces. The main police headquarters was still smoldering after it was hit by militia shelling a day earlier, and smoke rose from the barracks of the Special Forces, once the strongest security body in the city until it was overrun by militiamen.

The militia victories in the city are part of a powerful backlash by Islamist forces in Libya after setbacks earlier this year. The militiamen's sweep through Benghazi was also a heavy reversal for Gen. Khalifa Hifter, a renegade general who for months had led army units and other fighters in a self-declared campaign aimed at stamping out armed Islamic militant groups. After forces loyal to him lost their bases inside Benghazi the past days, his loyalists now appeared to only hold the airport on the city's edges.

The armed groups that overran the city belong to a newly-formed umbrella group called Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries, made up of multiple armed factions led by Islamic extremist commanders. Among the factions is Ansar al-Shariah, the group accused by the United States of leading a Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in the city that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.

"We are the only force on the ground in Benghazi," a commander of one of the coalition's factions told The Associated Press on Thursday. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press. He said the coalition's fighters had driven all army forces and fighters loyal to Hifter out the city.

In a video put out by Thursday by Ansar al-Shariah, its commander Mohammed al-Zahawi congratulates his followers on "this victory and conquest." He was shown standing in front of a tank inside the base of the Special Forces. Another militia commander, Wissam bin Hamid, was also shown in the camp in the video, proclaiming in front of his masked fighters, "We will not stop until we establish the rule of God."

We're the battling boys of BenghaziNo fame, no glory, no paparazzi.Just a fiery death in a blazing hellDefending our country we loved so well.It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.We pulled twenty Countrymen from the jaws of fateLed them to safety, and stood at the gate.Just the two of us, and foes by the score,But we stood fast to bar the door.Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,So we fought, and we fought, and we fought 'til we died.We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,But Barack Obama didn't give a damn.Just two dead seals who carried the load?No thanks to us.........we were just "Bumps In The Road".

Superb one hour documentary by Bret Baier this weekend on FOX called "Thirteen Hours" featuring intense interviews with three men who were there. If someone can find a link for it, please post it here.

Superb one hour documentary by Bret Baier this weekend on FOX called "Thirteen Hours" featuring intense interviews with three men who were there. If someone can find a link for it, please post it here.

I have not seen this but it seems the truth of what happened is far worse than we imagined.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hear is another report on the book, 13 Hours, followed by interviews with the surviving witnesses. I will predict that a movie based on this book will be next year's blockbuster. Good luck to the lame duck and his JV former Sec State getting this avoidable tragedy and the cover up to fade into the background. As they say at the end, you are hearing what happened for the first time.

On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”

Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.

But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.

In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.

The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.

The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.

After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?

Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.

The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”

After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”

Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”

And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.

Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:

The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.

13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”

Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.

Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.

As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.

On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:

Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?

Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.

RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11th?

John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.

RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?

MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.

RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?

JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.

RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?

JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.

RK: Did you ever figure out why?

JT: No.

RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?

MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.

RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…

Multiple voices: I would agree. I would agree with that.

RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.

JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.

RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.

JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.

[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]

RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.

JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.

RK: What did Bob say to you?

JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?

JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

Kris Paronto: Yes.

MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.

RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?

JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.

KP: Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.

RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?

JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.

[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]

RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?

MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.

RK: Does the government understand national security?

KP: This administration, I’d say no.

RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?

JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.

MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.

RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?

JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?

JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”

MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.

KP: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.

RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?

MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.

Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.

More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them.

Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.

In an interview Monday morning on Fox News, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, named the two Hillary Clinton confidants who were allegedly present: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff and former White House counsel who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial; and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who previously worked on Hillary Clinton’s and then Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Who knows where the truth lies, but... this is a named source, a key player, telling what they saw and heard first hand, and a reporter who actually is a "professional journalist". This is exactly the kind of story CBS didn't want Sharyl Attkisson working on.

Once again, if true, a Clinton has underlings doing their dirty work for them while she stays out of the building and above the fray. Maybe you can't convict her, but you can't trust her either.

And that during the Bush administration there were TWO embassy/consulate attacks prior to the death of U.S. diplomat David Foy and there was never a claim by Republicans about dereliction of duty on the part of President Bush, nor "outrage" at Mr. Foy's death. It was simply viewed as the tragedy it truly was, and was not made into a political football.

None caused outrage. The evidence is compelling that Republicans don't actually care about the safety of the U.S. diplomatic corps. Benghazi is nothing more than a political football, and is only being dragged out in order to harm Hillary Clinton's chances in the election.

========================

We are in the final days before the Gathering and I am super busy. Anyone care to handle the response? Remember we are looking to persuade the readers, not the opposing poster.

1. Benghazi was not blamed on a video?A poster can say this avoidable tragedy was not blamed on a video, and Candy Crowley can say something akin to that to the nation, but I was watching live when they did exactly that - on every network. No string of links will change that. And Susan Rice was no loose cannon; she was reciting a State Dept and administration script. The President repeated the same inference to the UN and Hillary and staff were the likely authors of it. That they spoke out of the other sides of their mouths at other times mentioning other things such as possible terror does not make this false talking point (LIE) go away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGXy_yhOfNg It's only a minute; WATCH IT.

The issue was not only relevant, but crucial to them to not let the exploding Middle East derail their foreign policy mantra and their chance to serve a second, failed term. This was the line to get them through the 2012 election. Hillary chose not to be the face going forward with this DELIBERATE LIE and did not to speak up later to correct it. Instead she said to grieving families that they would get the person who made that video, and later more publicly she proclaimed, when pressed, the famous, "WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE...". Honorable Madam Secretary, it matters when our government lies so boldly to our face!

2. There was no wrongdoing? Joking, right? He must mean provable criminally prosecutable wrongdoing and in that case, the evidence of document purging is just now surfacing and was not part of the committee reports cited. No list of links changes the fact that we put an Ambassador in a war zone on an unnamed mission with UNARMED "security" at the gate, on the feared anniversary of 9/11. Was that wrong? We didn't dispatch help from the start. Was that wrong? We lied to the American people and the world. Was that wrong? A hyper-partisan can say there wasn't enough Republican authorized funds in a 500 Billion dollar defense budget or her million mile State Dept budget to give these guards a gun or to fly in assistance, but it just isn't so. The poster says this is about Hillary. Yes it is. This all happened on her watch. She claims she had too many underlings to manage, and too many incoming emails to know that Ambassador Stevens was out there crying for help. And now, like Susan Rice, she deserves a promotion??

3. There was no stand down order? The book, "13 Hours", with the account from the inside says otherwise. That was the order on the ground, where it mattered, "Stand Down". People died defying that order. Perhaps that order did not come from the Commander in Chief or the mystic situation room; we don't even know the President's whereabouts during the 13 hours. Then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton was not returning calls to Benghazi during the crisis while they were desperate to hear back. They couldn't reach her and she probably could not reach the President or at least couldn't get the right response. The compound burned and the Ambassador suffered a slow, smoke inhalation death, while a few others fought, with no back up on the way. Stand down was not only true, but perhaps unprecedented in US history.

4. This has already been fully investigated? That is a great one, right out of the scandal management play book. Those who claim that can answer the unanswered questions - which is pretty much everything to do with this tragedy, before, during and after. The links provided certainly don't do that.

5. Speaking of truthiness, the poster re-directs blame to George Bush, lol. Good grief. This happened 13 times under Bush? No. Nothing like this happened under Bush, and if it did, how would that change anything?

The alternative route that this President and administration opted against was the truth. They could have said: 'We made a mistake allowing the Ambassador to be there, unguarded, in the first place. We misjudged the time length of the multiple attacks on multiple facilities when we decided not to fly in more resources from further away to at least intimidate the attackers. The attack was never about a video. Al Qaeda and its offshoots are not defeated, nor on the run. In fact, our intelligence says they are about to take over nearly all of the Middle East in our second term because of our failed policies and neglect in the region. Please vote for us anyway.' The campaign nixed that idea.

And when Hillary saw Susan Rice lie to the nation, she could have spoken up and said she will not part of this lie. She could have resigned in disgust and distanced herself. Instead she left the administration with their mutual, back-slapping non-interview on 60 Minutes.

It was Hilary who famously put forward the 3am question for any potential President: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg It's only 30 seconds; WATCH IT. The call came and she did not take it or call back. She can say that HE was President, but if she would have done differently than President Obama, before, during or after this crisis, she could have said so and she didn't. Now Hillary is neck deep in it and still digging. And her defenders are grasping at links to say that what is right in front of our face is not true.

I would add that the Clintonian dodge of "No stand down order" is that since no order to go was given, there was no stand down order. However the fact is that the operators at the CIA annex were trying to go and told not to. See my post earlier in this thread about Bret Baier's interview with the three men in question.

Also, if I remember correctly, there were some troops on a plane headed out but they were told to get off and change their uniforms.